Talk:Embassy of the United States, Havana

Kennedy
Kennedy was not in office on 1/3/1961. Whoever wrote that gave either the wrong date or the wrong president. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.29.178.190 (talk) 02:28, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You're correct. For clarification - and to prevent further edits - John F. Kennedy took office on January 20, 1961. Dwight Eisenhower was president from January 20, 1953 to January 20, 1961. --  NEMESIS63  | talk  |  04:31, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The date format used was probably not American and therefore correct 1/March/1961. American date format should have been used on this page.  8&#61;&#61;8 Boneso (talk) 01:50, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Brutalist architecture?
To me, the building does not seem to fall into the category of Brutalist architecture by any standard. I would rather suggest International Style. Can anybody offer a valid source for the 'brutalist' claim? --Hvd69 (talk) 22:39, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

The answer would be in the New York Times piece, "Havana's New York Accent" (cited as source 14) in which Christopher Gray describes the structure as "the hulking, brutalist United States Embassy office building." I personally would say that Gray's opinion does not a fact make, and agree that the building fails as an exemplar of Brutalism both by virtue of its design and more importantly because of its date (too early for American Brutalism). This article would benefit from the use of scholarly sources on the building's architecture. A quick search of Google books turns up quite a few. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2C7:8480:392:ADB6:AB84:4BD6:F1A (talk) 07:48, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Merger?
The Suspected Cuban sonic attack issue is already covered on this page, but someone recently made a separate article just for that subject. Is it worthy? RobP (talk) 12:42, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * In my opinion it is "worthy"; that was my reason for creating the article. It keeps coming up on the news. Ethanbas (talk) 13:56, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * If it is proven to be an act of mass violence (like a shooting) it qualifies as notable. If it turns out to be mass hysteria, ditto, I think, as an interesting and widely reported phenomenon. If it turns out to be happening to do some freak accident, I suppose it is a notable incident, however vague and poorly understood for the moment. As a side issue, I have edited down the cut-and-paste on sonic weapon. I'm not sure what's left should even be there at all, given we don't know what's causing this. If any editors of this page want to have a look at that one and offer comment, they are most welcome.ZarhanFastfire (talk) 18:04, 15 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Merge. The alleged sonic attacks will form part of the history of U.S. Cuban relations and the history of the Embassy. At this point in time I argue that the attacks are not notable, but merely an unsupported allegation.  They are not a mass act of violence nor mass hysteria.  At this point in time the event is worthy of a mention, but not notable.  The sonic attack can be easily searched.  The Suspected Cuban sonic attack page is a stub and almost shorter than the mention on the this page.  8&#61;&#61;8 Boneso (talk) 03:53, 16 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Do not merge and fix botched article creation. We have a guideline that covers this case, WP:EVENT. I hope that everyone would agree that this incident passes the geographical scope, depth of coverage, and diversity of sources criteria. It is difficult at this stage to assess whether these events (both the alleged incident and the US [re]action) will have a lasting effect and/or gain continued coverage. This affair has continued for nearly three months now, and has seriously impaired US-Cuban relations, which I think is just about enough to meet those criteria. However, the new article seems to have been created by cutting-and-pasting from this one, which seems to violate the CC licence: I was surprised to see that wording I added to this article was present in the fork without any attribution. I am sure u|Ethanbas had the best of intentions, but there needs to be a WP:PROPERSPLIT; apparently an admin many be able to fix the page by following the instructions at WP:CUTPASTE. At the very least the talk page should link back to this article at the point of divergence. I also think the fork name is terrible, because the US actions are just as important as any alleged attack. The current wording may be intended to indicate a Cuban location, but it can be read in a way that frames the Cubans as suspects, which is very far from proven at this stage. The best I can manage is 2017 Cuban-US diplomatic health affair, but it's rather clumsy. Matt's talk 10:20, 16 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Matt's talk, I apologize for forgetting to include attribution. I've mentioned it now on the attack's talk page. Ethanbas (talk) 10:28, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * As bad as the title is, it's better than it was; it didn't used to say "suspected". I think something along the lines of "scare" is objective, as someone suggested on its talk page. We do have to be careful about US/Cuba though, because Canadian embassy staff have also been affected. I think "attack" should be stricken from both pages since there's yet to be any real evidence of one. Maybe "Cuba" rather than "Cuban" to indicate where it's happened... 2016-2017 Havana health scare or something like that?ZarhanFastfire (talk) 01:27, 17 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Title discussions should happen on the appropriate talk page.  It appears that this matter is resolved. 8&#61;&#61;8 Boneso (talk) 01:43, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge I only read news reports (probably most of us), and since the section on this supposed sonic attack is merely larger than the current main article I support merging it all into the Embassy of the United States, Havana article. prokaryotes (talk) 19:12, 1 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Do not merge The article on the health-related incidents has been significantly expanded since this discussion began, and significant coverage of the incident has continued, with no sign of ending. These incidents are certainly notable, and deserving of inclusion. If merged now, content on the health-related incidents would outweigh content on the embassy itself.--Tdl1060 (talk) 23:28, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Sonic attack?
There is growing consensus this was probably not a sonic (sound-based) attack. Yet that's the moniker for event recognition. Strange. Might be best to drop the word sonic from the heading (and main article title).
 * Loud, mysterious sounds followed by hearing loss and ear-ringing had led investigators to suspect "sonic attacks." But officials are now carefully avoiding that term. The sounds may have been the byproduct of something else that caused damage, said three U.S. officials briefed on the investigation. -- Green  C  16:39, 6 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I always doubted that it was a sonic attack. But that is what it was always known as, and probably will be known as for a long time to come.  I think the title should remain, with comment in the section below. 8&#61;&#61;8 Boneso (talk) 03:07, 8 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Infrasonic ? 69.181.23.220 (talk) 22:17, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Infrasonic ?
"On December 30, 2016, Patient Zero in the Cuba crisis visited the Embassy health office. The patient, a C.I.A. officer who was operating under diplomatic cover, told a nurse that he had experienced strange sensations of sound and pressure while in his home, followed by painful headaches and dizziness."
 * https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/11/19/the-mystery-of-the-havana-syndrome

Antenna array ?
 * https://www.google.com/maps/@23.1458786,-82.3876316,3a,75y,90t/data=!3m8!1e2!3m6!1sAF1QipNm8a7VxxC9xQxQj__E9eoxDmwkPFYooYSsTkAg!2e10!3e12!6shttps:%2F%2Flh5.googleusercontent.com%2Fp%2FAF1QipNm8a7VxxC9xQxQj__E9eoxDmwkPFYooYSsTkAg%3Dw203-h134-k-no!7i900!8i596

69.181.23.220 (talk) 22:42, 11 November 2018 (UTC)